Chapter 2: Hijacked! How the Standards Movement Turned Into the Testing Movement
pg. 15 - 30
Summary
This chapter focuses mostly on school reforms and how everyone realized that it was important for students to have a well rounded education. Government and schools understood that students needed to be proficient in subject like history, english, and the arts. Standardized tests don't often test students on history and the arts, which are just as important.
Notes
leading reform ideas were accountability and choice
No Child Left Behind
"The rise or fall of test scores in reading and mathematics became the critical variable in judging students, teachers, principals, and schools."
NCLB didn't reference what students should learn
left to each state to determine
initially supportive of NCLB
law bypassed curriculum
claimed it was a natural outgrowth of the standards movement
demanded that schools generate higher test scores in basic skills
required no curriculum at all
also didn't raise standards
didn't include history, civics, literature, science, the arts, and geography
new reforms had everything to do with structural changes and accoutability, but nothing to do with the substance of learning
often generated higher test scores
had nothing to do with education
should be based on the curriclum
"Students need a coherent foundation of knowledge and skills that grows stronger each year."
well-educated person:
has a well furnished mind, shaped by reading and thinkig about history, science, literature, the arts, and politics
has learned how to explain ideas and listen respectfully to others
in 1980s and 1990s there were efforts to rivive liberal education
believed all children should have access to a broad education in the arts and sciences
1991 - 1992: grants awarded to schools to develop voluntary national standards
fell apart in 1994
Lynne V. Cheney
the not yet released history standards were poliyically biased
Bill Clinton became president
history standards ignored
Ravitch: history standars should be revised not abandoned
"Will we learn from our mistakes and keep trying? Or will we give up?" (pg. 18)
Reactions - 2011
We agree that the improvements and modifications to the curriculum that Ravitch discusses are definitely needed. The students need to be more well rounded so the teachers and classrooms need to modify their plans so that more time is dedicated to each of the subjects. Ravitch's point about moving away from testing resonates with us because we feel as though we have been taught how to take a test, not taught the material that we would need to know. How effective are these tests if you can score above average on a Science section without ever taking a Biology course? The teachers are being told to teach to the test, not to the material in the course. Teachers cram material that will be tested on the state tests into their lessons even though they are not even related to the current course material. We feel as if the subjects that are tested on, like English and Math, are given more attention than the other subjects such as Science and History. Ignoring or not focusing as much on these other subjects is leading to ignorance in students. For example, if you know that a law has failed in the past, you will know not to enforce it again. Having knowledge of these subjects makes more well rounded students who will better off in the future. Based on the levels of students and the levels of those classes, students are being told different things. For example, in an Honors or AP, students feel as if they are encouraged to think more freely and their opinions are appreciated. However, in a College Prep or lower level, they are being taught that their opinions are wrong and are not being encouraged to think freely. - Reaction- How does teaching tests make the students proficient in the long-run? The goal is to educate students’ on a curriculum and not just on tests. What went wrong with the NCLB act was teachers stopped using curriculums so they could just focus on testing scores. States had control of what would be taught which ended up narrowing what types of classes kids could take. Subjects like history, art and science are important in education and being cut out of curriculums is counterproductive because it prevents students from becoming well-rounded.
Chapter 2: Hijacked! How the Standards Movement Turned Into the Testing Movement
pg. 15 - 30Summary
This chapter focuses mostly on school reforms and how everyone realized that it was important for students to have a well rounded education. Government and schools understood that students needed to be proficient in subject like history, english, and the arts. Standardized tests don't often test students on history and the arts, which are just as important.Notes
Reactions - 2011
We agree that the improvements and modifications to the curriculum that Ravitch discusses are definitely needed. The students need to be more well rounded so the teachers and classrooms need to modify their plans so that more time is dedicated to each of the subjects. Ravitch's point about moving away from testing resonates with us because we feel as though we have been taught how to take a test, not taught the material that we would need to know. How effective are these tests if you can score above average on a Science section without ever taking a Biology course? The teachers are being told to teach to the test, not to the material in the course. Teachers cram material that will be tested on the state tests into their lessons even though they are not even related to the current course material. We feel as if the subjects that are tested on, like English and Math, are given more attention than the other subjects such as Science and History. Ignoring or not focusing as much on these other subjects is leading to ignorance in students. For example, if you know that a law has failed in the past, you will know not to enforce it again. Having knowledge of these subjects makes more well rounded students who will better off in the future. Based on the levels of students and the levels of those classes, students are being told different things. For example, in an Honors or AP, students feel as if they are encouraged to think more freely and their opinions are appreciated. However, in a College Prep or lower level, they are being taught that their opinions are wrong and are not being encouraged to think freely.- Reaction- How does teaching tests make the students proficient in the long-run? The goal is to educate students’ on a curriculum and not just on tests. What went wrong with the NCLB act was teachers stopped using curriculums so they could just focus on testing scores. States had control of what would be taught which ended up narrowing what types of classes kids could take. Subjects like history, art and science are important in education and being cut out of curriculums is counterproductive because it prevents students from becoming well-rounded.